Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill.

If the President of the United States were a rational decision maker, a bill of this kind would not be necessary in the first place. Unfortunately, the President continues to cling to the illusion that the situation in Iraq will improve if only we're willing to sacrifice still more American lives. But we cannot solve Iraq's civil war any more than we could solve Vietnam's civil war 40 years ago.

By unleashing forces he does not understand and cannot control, the President has put our military forces in an impossible situation. Our troops cannot referee Iraq's sectarian conflict. The longer our forces remain in Iraq, the more they become identified with a government that is seen as increasingly repressive, and incapable--or unwilling--to take the steps necessary to resolve Iraq's internal conflict politically and peacefully. It is for all these reasons that it is past time for Congress to take steps in forcing the President to change course and withdraw our combat troops.

This course correction is far slower and more difficult than I would like. I share the frustration of many of my colleagues that the President is not moving quickly enough or boldly enough to end our military involvement in Iraq. I for one do not expect the President to provide the Congress with accurate assessments of the readiness of our forces or of the Pentagon's ability to meet some key needs of the troops.

Existing DoD readiness assessments already show that our forces are overworked and overstretched. My friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, has included provisions in this bill that seek to limit the President's ability to deploy our ground forces to Iraq that are not truly ready and therefore less effective and more at risk. I believe zealous oversight of these provisions will be required if this bill becomes law. The President has shown he is willing to say or do anything to try to get his way when it comes to Iraq policy. He must not be allowed to politicize readiness assessments the way he has politicized intelligence assessments.

One bogus criticism of this measure is that setting a date certain for withdrawal is bad policy or micromanagement by the Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been trotting this argument out frequently of late. Their position is undercut by the fact that they voted to impose time lines and benchmarks on President Clinton during our effort in the Balkans a decade ago.

By the way, I am pleased that this measure contains significantly increased funding for two critical areas of veterans health care: traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. We are only beginning to come to grips with the true costs of this conflict for our veterans, and we must take aggressive measures to ensure that they receive the follow up care they need to have the best possible chance of leading full, productive lives.

Mr. Speaker, we should be under no illusions regarding this bill. It is only the first concrete step in our effort to redirect our nation's policy in Iraq. Some weeks ago, we passed a non-binding resolution that pointed us in a

new direction with respect to the occupation and war in Iraq. That was the right thing to do, even though it was non-binding on the President. Similarly, this supplemental appropriation is beneficial, although the actual withdrawal of troops will require, I believe, additional forceful action by Congress to fulfill the provisions of this bill.

It is important to move forward with this measure now and force this President to make America's combat occupation of Iraq history rather than a limitless, open-ended future.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the constitutional history of the United States has been the expansion of the voting franchise. Our history has been to expand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

With respect to the District of Columbia, the Constitution provides that the Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation. It does not say that the price is the loss of the franchise.

As a youngster who lived here in the District of Columbia, I was told by some that residents of D.C. were special. My colleague from Texas used the

word ``distinctive'' awhile ago, that somehow we were honored to have Congress govern us even though we did not have representation.

What a strange honor. It is truly paradoxical and ironic that residents of the seat of government of the greatest democracy in the world should not themselves have the right of direct representation, 600,000 citizens, citizens without the complete basic rights of citizens. Giving D.C.'s 600,000 residents direct representation of Congress is long overdue.

I rise today in support of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and I would like to commend my colleagues Eleanor Holmes Norton and Tom Davis for their tireless efforts to bring this important measure to the Floor for a vote.

The United States Constitution, a relatively short and simple document, has utterly transformed the world in its 200 year history. It has served as a model for fledgling democracies everywhere, because of its establishment of a system under which the citizenry grant limited powers to the government and choose the individuals who will represent them in that government. The Constitutional history of the United States has been the expansion of the voting franchise. Our history has been to expand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

As for the District of Columbia, however, the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power ``to exercise exclusive legislation over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may . . . become the seat of government of the United States.'' It does not say that the price is disenfranchisement.

The importance of creating a neutral jurisdiction for the seat of the federal government under the exclusive control of Congress made sense at the time. As a youngster who lived in the District of Columbia many decades ago, I was told by some that residents of DC were special, distinctive as the gentleman, Mr. Smith, that we were honored to have Congress govern us even though Congress worked without representation from us. What a strange honor! It is truly paradoxical that the residents of the seat of government of the greatest democracy in the world should not, themselves, have the rights to direct representation. The District of Columbia was created in 1790 and, in 1800, it had a population of just over 8,000. Today, it is home to about 600,000 citizens--citizens without the complete basic rights of citizens.

If enacted, H.R. 1433 would treat the District of Columbia like a congressional district for the purposes of allowing direct representation within the House of Representatives. This measure was reported out favorably by the House Committee on the Judiciary Committee by a margin of almost two to one, and subsequently by the House Committee on Oversight and Government by a margin of 25 to four. [Giving Washington D.C.'s 600,000 residents direct representation in Congress is long overdue;] I fully support this measure and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the passing this week of one of the most effective environmentalists in the State of New Jersey, indeed in the country, Dr. Ted Stiles. Perhaps not the most celebrated, he should be celebrated. He preserved thousands of acres, advanced the understanding of ecology, and improved the environment for millions of people for generations to come. To some of my colleagues from the western States, thousands of acres may not sound like much, but the significance of that preservation and the difficulty of doing it in the densely populated Northeast are great.

Dr. Stiles chaired and led boards of the Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association, the Mercer County Open Space Preservation Board, the Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space, the Municipal Land Use Center, the New Jersey Academy of Science, and the Hutchinson Memorial Forest. He served for many years on boards, including the Crossroads of the American Revolution Association; The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey chapter; and others. He continued all of this work through his illness and up to his death.

He showed creative approaches to locally based environmental decision-making, such as his creation of the Municipal Land Use Center; and he received awards from academia and regional and community organizations and the highest environmental award from the Governor of New Jersey.

What distinguished Dr. Stiles especially was his unparalleled, unmatched ability to make people want to do those things that contribute to the general good. He made landowners want to offer their land to preservation organizations, and he made people want to spend their money to purchase and preserve that land. He made volunteer board members want to give of their time and effort to build communities and to improve the environment.

He made grad students want to go to remote places around the world to do such things as measuring the size of fruits relative to the sizes of birds' beaks so we could better understand the relationship between communities of plants and communities of animals.

He made hundreds of local citizens want to spend a day twice a year cleaning up their town. And he made a politically interested scientist want to leave a research career to run for Congress. Yes, I am that scientist. Dr. Stiles' research students continue to make contributions to research, teaching, and public policy around the country.

Throughout his life, it is not an empty cliche to say, Dr. Stiles, through goodwill and good ideas and

leadership, made this country a better place.

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Chairman, this is not really about secret ballots or any of the other kinds of red herrings that are being dragged across here. It is about whether we want an even playing field so workers will have the opportunity to protect their rights and interests and advance the American economy. It should be obvious that an individual worker is in a position of lesser influence relative to the employer. Going back now 70 years, the labor relations laws were put together so that there would be an even playing field. Now we need some adjustment in that because there is still not an even playing field.

The track record of unions is clear. Unions help lift working men and women and, in fact, the entire economy. Union members earn median wages that are higher. They have more employer-provided health insurance than nonunion members do. They have better defined benefit pension plans.

Unions benefit workers and benefit society. That is what this is about.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the House is considering this measure today, and I intend to vote for it.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2005, direct foreign investment in the U.S. totaled some $109 billion. By year-end 2004, the latest year for which detailed data are available, foreign firms employed 5.6 million Americans (just under 4% of the U.S. civilian labor force) and owned over 30 thousand individual business establishments. While the impact of foreign investment on our economy is generally positive, last year we saw how inadequate monitoring of the foreign investment process can produce threats to our security.

It was just over a year ago that we learned from media reports that the Bush administration had quietly approved the sale of an American port operations company to Dubai Ports World (DPW), an entity owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. The deal was approved by a little-known government entity, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS for short. CFIUS was created by President Ford in 1975 via executive order in response to Congressional concerns over OPEC's investment activities in the United States.

In the DPW case, we subsequently learned that at least some elements of the intelligence community had expressed concerns about the security implications of the DPW transaction. In Congress, we were concerned that CFIUS had ignored or downplayed any potential security issues surrounding the transaction. We were told that DPW is well run and efficient. That may be, but there was good reason for concern.

The UAE, which owned and controlled the acquiring company in this case, had previously been identified as a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components that were sent to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, which were sold by Pakistan's nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan. In addition, the UAE was one of only 3 countries (including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE nationals (Fayez Banihamrnad and Marwan al-Shehhi), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had previously claimed the money used for the attacks was

transferred to the 9/11 hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system. Furthermore, after the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Commerce complained of a lack of cooperation by the UAE and other Arab countries as the U.S. was trying to track down Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.

The Bush administration initially denied there were any such security concerns surrounding the DPW deal, so I worked to get a portion of the United States Coast Guard intelligence estimate declassified so the public would know the truth. The Coast Guard finally provided me with the declassified executive summary on May 25, 2006, and I want to make sure my colleagues and the public are aware of what this assessment says.

While the USCG assessment stated that the DPW deal posed no ``immediate'' threat to the United States, it also stated that the deal ``could also provide a potential vector for Dubai-based terrorists to enter the United States, exploiting the port facilities in the same way that other terrorists have exploited individual shipping companies.''

I note for the record that I spent three months pressing Coast Guard officials to declassify this single page. Congress should not have to haggle with the executive branch to get intelligence assessments on potential security threats to our people in a manner that protects intelligence sources and methods. The bill before us contains changes in the law governing CFIUS that should help prevent a repeat of the Dubai Ports World fiasco, particularly with regards to intelligence assessments and Congressional notification.

Specifically, the bill before us requires a mandatory 45-day investigation for all acquisitions involving foreign governments, to include a requirement that the Director of National Intelligence play a direct role in evaluating the national security implications of such acquisitions. The bill also requires automatic notification of Congress within five days after the conclusion of each investigation. Finally, the bill requires the Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries of the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security to personally approve such transactions. These are common sense reforms of the CFIUS process that are long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, this week during the debate on H. Con. Res. 63, I spoke of the men and women of our Armed Forces and the sacrifices they have made for our country. I noted that I had visited them in theater, at Walter Reed, and with their families in New Jersey. As I said, the quality of these men and women, and their earnest wish to serve their country, makes this situation in Iraq all the more tragic. I am sure I was quite clear regarding my sentiments, but it would appear that some in this House chose to mischaracterize my remarks.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter, said that I ``referred to our wounded folks in Walter Reed as tragic.'' I want the gentleman to know I said no such thing, and I will ask him to be accurate if he chooses to quote me again.

Mr. Speaker, America begins the fifth year of war in Iraq. I am pleased that Speaker Pelosi has scheduled such a thorough debate of the most important moral and political issue of the day. The war in Iraq was misguided from the outset, even illegal, and has been mismanaged consistently ever since.

The resolution we have before us today puts Congress on record opposing the escalation of troops in Iraq proposed by President Bush and expressing our steadfast support for our troops.

Let me say at the outset that I intend to vote for this resolution. It is an important first step. The President's escalation of forces in Iraq is worse than the stay-the-course strategy so clearly rejected by Americans. If we pass this resolution, we will be doing more than repudiating the President's disastrous policy. We will for the first time be putting Congress on record in a way that will allow us to bring this war to an end for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq are heroes. They are the most finely trained and dedicated group of patriots any leader could want. But they now find themselves mired in the middle of intense violence, based on sectarian, political, social and cultural factors dating back 1,000 years.

The situation in Iraq cannot be solved militarily. Pretending otherwise only puts our soldiers, marines and others in greater danger. I have visited them in theater, in Iraq and other countries in the region and, yes, at Walter Reed Hospital here in Washington.

I have met with their families in New Jersey. The quality of these men and women, their earnest wish to serve their country makes this situation all the more tragic.

Mr. Speaker, they were sent to Iraq irresponsibly and in ignorance by leaders, sometimes improperly equipped, and are now asked to achieve an impossible mission. There is no way for us to resolve militarily the emerging multifaceted civil war that is engulfing Iraq.

When he ordered the invasion of Iraq, President Bush unleashed forces he did not understand and could not control. As the most recent National Intelligence Estimate attests: ``The term civil war does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence and al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces and widespread criminally motivated violence.''

Whenever American forces leave Iraq, there will not be a stable American-style liberal democracy. Prolonging the occupation of Iraq whose stability has only declined by any measure as our presence goes on increases the costs we incur in lives, dollars, and international prestige.

No one will look back and say, if only the American military stayed a little longer. No, historians will look back and ask what took Congress so long to recognize a disaster and do something about it. Extracting American troops from this quagmire will dry up support for the various insurgencies operating in Iraq, and encourage other nations to take part in the process of stabilizing the country and promote the domestic processes necessary for long-term stability.

Given all of those factors, the burden should not be on those who believe that American forces should be withdrawn. The burden should be on those who want to continue this endeavor to show any compelling evidence that is worth sending more Americans to kill and to be killed.

Sending more troops should require the same high standard of evidence that should have been met to go to war in the first place.

But the President and, I am sorry to say, the previous Congresses did not apply that high standard. Some of us said 4 years ago that there was not evidence sufficiently compelling to send Americans to kill and to die. After the President went to war anyway, I called for withdrawal early.

Now, Congress must establish standards that we failed to set, standards of intelligence and evidence, standards of diplomacy, standards of legislative oversight, so that we do not go to war or escalate wars based on ideology rather than evidence, bravado rather than humility, patriotic fervor rather than patient diplomacy.

Congress failed in its constitutional role to exert a check and balance on the Executive. With this resolution we begin on a new course, under new legislative leadership. We will audit the books. We will review the procedures for detaining prisoners, for engaging civilians, for conducting intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for President Bush to catch up with the American people. The American people understand that American forces should not remain in Iraq to try to quell a civil war they cannot control. The American people understand that we must refocus our attention on our real interests. If the President did not, let us show at least that we do and pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of our former colleague and man of faith, Father Robert Drinan. I never had the honor to serve with Father Drinan in Congress, but the effects of his advocacy and leadership remain. In the years after he left Congress and contining through my election and service, I was encouraged and honored to have the friendship and counsel of Father Bob.

His life is unique in American history. He was the only Roman Catholic priest to be elected to Congress. He represented the best that we, as Members of Congress, can aspire to. Not bound to special interests or enticed by political gains, he truly cared about the people who had elected him and those around the globe who were persecuted or malnourished, who could be called ``the least of these.''

He was a passionate advocate for the poor and he called ending world hunger his ``number one passion.'' His opposition to the Vietnam war was the centerpiece of his 1970 campaign. Asked by a reporter for the Boston Globe why he decided to run for Congress, Father Drinan replied, ``Why? Why not. Jesuit priests have always been avant-garde. Right?''

Born in Boston on November 15, 1920, Father Drinan never strayed far from the city and people he loved. After earning his bachelor's degree at Boston College in 1942, he enrolled in the Society of Jesus. He completed his seminary work at Weston College, earned a master's degree from Boston College, and a law degree from Georgetown University. In 1953, Father Drinan was ordained and shortly thereafter completed his doctorate in theology from Gregorian University in Rome. As dean of the Boston College Law School, he transformed the institution into one of the premiere law schools in the country.

In 1980, when he left Congress, he returned as a teacher to Georgetown University Law School. It was there that he not only taught but wrote important works of scholarship and continued to serve as a moral compass to his students, government officials and all Americans. He was deeply interested in human rights, constitutional rights, civil liberties and ethics. Until the very end of his life he continued to celebrate Sunday evening mass with the law students he taught and loved.

It has been recalled recently that when asked about his decision to wear a clerical collar and a black suit, his standard reply was, ``It's the only suit I own.'' He was a sharp wit, but also a deeply moral man. Many current and former members have called Father Drinan ``the conscience of the House.'' Senator Edward Kennedy said of Father Drinan that, ``of all the hats he wore, none fit better than teacher, for he was a teacher to all of us.'' Father Drinan will be sadly missed by this institution and our Nation. I am glad that last year the House honored Father Drinan with the Distinguished Service Award for his decade of service in the House.

I knew Father Drinan best from his work as chairman on PeacePAC, a division of Council for a Livable World, and as director of the Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation. He was a man who believed deeply in world peace and he struggled mightily to achieve it. He and the Council for a Livable World encouraged me when I first considered running for this office, and I will always remember their support and true belief that peace should be a goal of all Members of Congress.

In November of 2006, the Council for a Livable World established the Father Robert F. Drinan National Peace and Human Rights Award to be given annually by the council to the individual who best exemplifies Father Drinan's commitment to peace. As Father Drinan said at the unveiling of the award, ``people will be reminded that: you cannot just make war.'' He was right to oppose the Vietnam war and right to oppose the Iraq war. We can all learn from his life's commitment to peace.

Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia recently eulogized that, ``Bob Drinan never faltered, was never discouraged. It remains for all of us to carry on the work for which he prepared us, to build an earth in which justice will prevail.''

Mr. Speaker, let us carry the spirit of Father Drinan in our hearts as we in Congress continue to work to complete the work he called us to do.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor the outstanding achievements of the fifth grade mathematics team at Parker Annex Elementary School in Trenton, New Jersey.

Recently, The Parker Annex Elementary School's fifth-grade ``lsotope6NJ'' team was recognized as the #1 ranked mathematics team in the First In Math Online Program. To earn this distinction, they out- performed more than 10,000 online teams comprised of 300,000 students from 30 other states. Led by fifth-grade teacher Edward Butler, this extraordinary group of inner-city students overcame obstacles such as lack of computers at home and a late start to this year's competition to become the top-ranked math team in the country. Additionally, Parker Annex teams ``ember31NJ'' and ``music22NJ'' are currently ranked 2nd and 3rd in New Jersey, respectively.

I am delighted by the students' achievement and proud of Trenton, but I am not surprised by what their collective will and substantial effort have achieved. This is the predictable result of a community effort to invest in the potential of its emerging minds. It showcases how motivated students, caring parents, dedicated teachers, and committed school administrators can cooperate to build a team that represents not only its students' best efforts but also an example of what makes Trenton a truly capital city.

This laudable achievement also highlights why I have always been and continue to be an advocate for math and science education. Math and science education in the elementary grades is foundational to the growth of our New Jersey students and an academically literate citizenry. Inquiry-based science and math curricula are necessary to allow students to explore their world critically and experientially, which is shown to increase intrinsic motivation and further interest in science.

The success of the program at Parker Annex Elementary School is a tribute to the students, faculty, administration, and the scientific community. I applaud the success of team ``lsotope6NJ'' and wish the students of Parker Annex continued success in their academic endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of H.J. Res. 20 the Continuing Resolution for FY 2007. Mr. Speaker, this is not the bill that I or any of my colleagues wish we were voting on today. This bill eliminates all earmarks, some for worthy projects like job training, community-based healthcare, and boys and girls clubs. I had hoped that each of the eleven FY 07 appropriations bills would have passed separately into law last year, with proper funding increases to ensure that we are investing for the future. Unfortunately, the last Congress only passed two.

The last Congress failed at this, and we are left now left to pass a continuing resolution for the rest of FY07 without the detailed fine- tuning and funding increases the bills normally contain. The Republican failures on the budget created the worst budget mess since the Government shut down in 1996. It is no wonder that the debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since Republicans took control of the Government.

The funding of scientific research is crucial to our competitiveness, economic well-being, and quality of life. Flat funding in the context of inflation is difficult for everyone, but it is particularly damaging to scientific enterprise. Scientific budget items must change dramatically each year as large projects with short lives are constructed, go into operation, and are replaced. This year would be a particularly bad time for flat funding in the sciences. We have new international commitments to energy research and new national projects that have completed construction and require operating budgets. We also have unprecedented and much-needed consensus to increase funding in the sciences to keep pace with our international peers. To this end, wrote with two others letters to the Appropriations Committee raising concerns about the impact of flat funding on the Department of Energy's Office of

Science and on the National Science Foundation. These letters were signed by a sizeable fraction of the House, and I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has addressed this matter, fully for the NSF and appreciably for the DOE Office of Science. I look forward to increased funding for research at NSF and for fusion energy in the FY 08 appropriations.

I would like to point out a few positive points in the bill. This bill provides for a $3.6 billion increase over last year's level for VA healthcare funding. I'm pleased that this increase will make it possible for us to provide services for an additional 325,000 patients in the VA medical system, and to meet rising healthcare costs as have more returning veterans than any time since the Vietnam era. I'm also pleased that the bill includes some $4 billion for our housing program for military families. These gains are important, but we have much more to do. As we begin looking at funding priorities for fiscal year 2008 and beyond, I believe it is imperative that the Congress finally meet America's obligation to provide for full funding of our veterans' health care system. VA hospital and clinic administrators cannot provide consistent, quality services and proper continuity of care over time unless they know how much money they have to work with. The existing discretionary appropriations process for VA healthcare is not working, and only a move to mandatory funding can solve this chronic problem. I look forward to voting for such a proposal this year.

The bill raises the maximum Pell grant award from $4,050 to $4,310. This increase, the first in 4 years, recognizes the essential role of the Pell grant program in improving access to higher education and as a critical component in comprehensive efforts to address college affordability. For years under Republican leadership, Congress all but ignored the growing college cost crisis that was preventing many qualified students from going to college. Now, in just the first month of this new Democratic Congress, the House has already voted overwhelmingly to cut interest rates on need-based Federal student loans. And we have another major step towards putting a college education within reach of every qualified student by boosting the Pell grant scholarship by $260.

The bill also increases Title I school funding by $125 million, bringing total funding from $12.7 to $12.8 billion. The proposed increase would reverse the decline in Title I funding since 2005 and would allow additional reading and math services for some 38,000 eligible children. I also support the proposed $125 million for the Title I school improvement fund. These funds, if passed would be targeted to the 6,700 schools designated as needing improvement under No Child Left Behind, thereby allowing them to implement professional development initiatives, tutoring programs, and other improvements designed to raise student achievement.

The bill also spends $4.5 billion, an increase of $1.3 billion, to expand efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and TB programs, including in the 15 focus countries and the multilateral efforts through the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria. The bill also spends $248 million, an increase of $149 million, to allow the Agency to expand its bilateral global malaria initiative activities from the current three countries to seven.

The chairman deserves ones thanks for negotiating a bill better than a traditional continuing resolution, which would have jeopardized American national security, resulted in thousands of layoffs, and cut off healthcare for members of the U.S. Armed Forces and veterans. For example, the Food Safety and Inspection Service would have faced a month of furloughs, resulting in the closure of 6,000 meat processing plants; the federal judiciary would have had to fire 2,500 workers; and the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab and other research facilities would have had to stop projects and layoff scientists. I ask my colleagues to pass this bill so that we can begin the FY 08 appropriations and make more important investments in our future.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, as one who has taught engineers earlier in my career, I am delighted to rise in support of this legislation that will recognize National Engineers Week and, through that, highlight the contributions made to society by engineers.

The programs that fit under National Engineers Week are broad. They will include such activities as Introduce a Girl to Engineering that will encourage women to pursue engineering and recognize those who do.

Other initiatives will include competitions and online exhibits, as well as

television programs. It will highlight that engineering is critical to the security of our country, certainly through developing sustainable energy production and use, in preventing and mitigating natural and man-made disasters, and to make our world work better and to contribute to the livability of our society.

Now Congress can pass this legislation supporting the excellent programming of National Engineers Week. Congress can also ensure that we make the best decisions based on the best information related to science, engineering and technology, such as we used to do with the help of the Office of Technology Assessment.

Congress can pass legislation to ensure that students nationwide are taught technical skills, that they are taught the importance of those skills as well, and to make sure that there are no financial obstacles for individuals who seek to pursue higher education in engineering and related fields. And Congress can ensure that federally funded research and development is not neglected as we put together the budget.

This is good legislation that highlights important work. I am pleased to support it.

I thank my friend from Texas.

Madam Speaker, we have heard about the numerous obstacles that Dr. Julian faced, no public high schools for African-Americans in Montgomery, so he had to go as a subfreshman to DePauw University, but his skill, his intelligence, allowed him to thrive there against the adversity. We have heard that a research job fell through because African-Americans were not allowed to stay overnight in a town in Wisconsin where he was going for that work.

We have heard about his contributions: fire retardants, treatments for glaucoma, a low-cost process to produce cortisone. That brings us up to today, why we are talking about this. Of course, we want to honor and recognize someone of such skill and such perseverance, but we want to highlight it for a reason, and that reason is that even today we are excluding people whose talents we need.

African-Americans constitute 14 percent or so of the U.S. population, but receive fewer than 4 percent of the doctorates awarded in chemistry and chemical engineering; hold about 1 percent, one out of 100 chemistry faculty positions in the top universities. These distressing numbers are not just an indication of unfairness. They are an indication of the loss of talent, the loss of creativity, that we need in our society. So this is not just to extol the accomplishments of Percy Julian, but to remind us that we have to make way for these talented individuals in our society today.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 5) expressing support for the designation and goals of ``Hire a Veteran Week'' and encouraging the President to issue a proclamation supporting those goals.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 5.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleagues for allowing this bill to come to the floor. I want to thank my partner in the bill, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, for his work and support on the measure, and also the chairman and ranking members of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

The bill calls upon the President to establish a permanent ``Hire a Veteran Week'' to help promote employment of veterans in a more concentrated fashion. Last year the House passed this bill by a voice vote. The bill enjoyed overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle because all of us understood that we had a lot more to do to help our veterans find jobs, start businesses on their own and get ahead as employees; and we still do have much more to do. I am grateful that the House leadership has allowed this bill to come forward today.

One of the reasons I am glad we are doing this is, we need to change the paradigm of how we think about veterans. Too often we spend a couple of days a year, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, thinking about veterans. But for too many Americans, these have simply become additional days to go shopping instead of recognizing the courage, the service, the sacrifice of those who have worn the uniform of our Nation, and that needs to change.

Since September 11, 2001, America has been creating the largest new pool of veterans since the Vietnam era. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have passed through Iraq and Afghanistan, including tens of thousands in our Guard and Reserve. All of these veterans are returning home and many, many of them, need help in obtaining and sustaining employment.

The most basic thing we can do is remind employers on a regular basis that veterans make great employees. It is not just that we owe it to them, although we do. It is not just that it is a matter of fairness, although it is. It is also that they are good workers with real, very real, life experience.

Some companies are making an effort to do this. One of them, in my district, Facile Corporation, has offices at Fort Monmouth, also in Camden, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Washington, Arlington, Colorado Springs and in, Madam Speaker, the State of California as well. Facile is a diversified company providing a range of services to military and civilian clients, information technology services and so forth.

But what makes this company special for me is the fact that 26 percent of its workforce nationwide is comprised of veterans. This didn't just happen. The employer made a conscious and conscientious effort to do so, to hire these veterans.

Last November, just before Veterans Day, I had the privilege of meeting with employees of Facile and learning how this effort to hire veterans truly was a win/win proposition for the company and for the veterans. I came away more convinced than ever that we need to institutionalize that kind of outreach, which is why I am proud to cosponsor this bill with a number of other colleagues here.

We face many difficult days ahead. Those wearing the uniform of the United States, the various uniforms who are serving in harm's way to defend us, face many difficult days ahead. They should not face more difficulties when they come home. One thing we can all agree on is that we need to give our veterans every opportunity to achieve the American Dream. That is the point of this legislation, to create the Hire a Veteran Week and to encourage the President to support the goal of Hire a Veteran Week.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his good words.

Madam Speaker, now I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and himself a military veteran.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), a

member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and himself a retired command sergeant major in the Minnesota National Guard.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, with no more speakers present, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I thank those who have spoken today. I, too, thank the staff of the majority and minority on the Veterans' Committee for preparing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, our veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq will require a range of services and assistance in making the transition back to civilian life. We will take up many issues related to those veterans. We will take up issues of war and peace here on the floor.

In the meantime, we should remind all employers, both in the government sector and in the private sector that hiring veterans is a smart choice. Their discipline, their work ethic, their prior service to our Nation make them excellent employees. I know. I have a couple working for me. They are superb.

We should pass this legislation for Hire a Veteran Week because we owe it to those who have borne the battle. We owe it to our country. Employers owe it to their stockholders and their clients and their customers, and they owe it to themselves.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that I hope will become a reality soon so that we will have a Hire a Veteran Week in America.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 24, which will reestablish the House Democracy Assistance Commission for the 110th Congress.

I was honored to be appointed by Speaker Pelosi to serve as a member of the House Democracy Assistance Commission during the last Congress, and I am proud of the accomplishments that were made by the Commission. I want to commend Representative David Dreier and Representative David Price who worked tirelessly during the 109th Congress to fulfill the mission of the Commission, and John Lis who worked tirelessly as the Commissions Staff Director.

The HDAC built upon Congress's long history of helping emerging democracies around the globe. Many of my colleagues will remember the informal Frost-Solomon Task Force which worked during the early 1990's to provide invaluable technical assistance and equipment to Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Russia. When the HDAC was created, former Congressman Frost commented that the work of the Commission, ``means a great deal to members of foreign parliaments because it demonstrates that elected leaders in the United States care about what happens in their country.'' The work of this Commission may not be noticed by many of our colleagues or even our constituents, but it is vitally important to support and strengthen parliaments of new democracies around the world

In 2006, the commission was active in Afghanistan, East Timor, Georgia, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, and Macedonia. I was glad to join the House Democracy Assistance Commission delegation to Lebanon and Kenya. During the trip, the delegation met with our counterparts in the Lebanese National Assembly and the National Assembly of Kenya. In Kenya, the delegation visited the Kimana Health Center and the Sinet water project, both of which were then dedicated in honor of Representative David Dreier and David Price, respectively.

The final leg of this trip was to a meeting with Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Liberia is home to the first female head of state in all of Africa and is a country founded by freed American slaves, it is essential that the United States remain actively engaged in helping to build Liberia's fledgling democracy.

Madam Speaker, the House Democracy Assistance Commission has only begun its important work. With the approval of this resolution, the Commission will be able to continue to spread its good work with an ever expanding list of partner countries.

I thank the Chair for her time and for presenting this legislation. I also commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), and the others who have been involved in this.

Mr. Speaker, it is important because of the tradition and because of the future. I know some people have said why does Congress even maintain the page program. We could privatize it. We could have messengers. Why does Congress even maintain a dormitory?

Because we contribute to the growth and the education of future leaders.

I speak as a former page, many decades past now, but I must count that as one of the formative experiences of my life. The pages learn the discipline of employment, they learn teamwork, but they also take to heart the democratic process, the representative government. They literally walk in the footsteps of some of the great figures of history. But we have a responsibility as Members of Congress not just for their education and growth, but also for their safety.

This legislation is important. I am pleased that the legislation mandates that the Page Board be composed of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, that it include a former page and a page parent, and mandates regular meetings of the board, so that the board is constantly aware and makes us in this body constantly aware of our responsibility for the welfare and the growth and the safety and the education of the pages.

The country is better off because of these pages, many of whom have gone on to important leadership positions and contributed in so many ways, in their hometowns, in their home States, and, in many cases, in the Federal Government.

As a former page and as a parent, I was offended and shocked at the breach of trust that occurred in the past year. But I am pleased that we are acting today to address systemic shortcomings and to prevent any such occurrence in the future, and, more to the point, working to make this a truly positive experience for all pages, all these young men and women, future leaders, and important employees and public servants even now.